JUDGE AND THE CHURCH.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 2530, 17 June 1909, Page 5

JUDGE AND THE CHURCH.

SOME HARD. HITTING. ABSTRACT JUSTICE ONLY. In entering judgment for defendant in the action brought by tho Rev J. B. Ronald against Robert Harper. M.P., for alleged slander and libel, Mr. Justice Hodges in the Civil Court, Melbourne, replied to the comments of members of the Presbyterian Assembly of Victoria on his action in committing the Rev P. J. Murdoch for contempt of court for refusing to produce a document in the case. His Honor said that the silence ordinarily observed by courts with regard to comments or criticisms on their acts and words was occasionally broken. The Presbyterian Church had furnished the community with a magnificent object lesson on the wisdom which had guided the Legislature. and the courts of this country in the jmst—the wisdom of ignoring each and every religious section, and the danger that would come from any alteration of the law in that respect. The matter appeared to have come up before a body called the Presbyterian Assembly, and at a meeting which, was described as the sitting of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Churdx of Victoria. So he took it that this was the representative- body of tho Presbyterian Church. It was not the act of an individual, but the a-ct of that bodj T , which led him to depart from tho general practice. A resolution appeared to have been proposed by the Rev. J. Weir. In that resolution there were the words “that the Assembly expresses its sympathy with the Rev. P. J. Murdoch on the indignity* put upon him in being sent to prison for acting according to what he deemed his duty to the Presbytery and the Church; and regrets that he was not afforded an opportunity of consulting his Presbytery, or giving an explanation of his action before Mr. Justice Hodges’ sentence was carried out.” That. *aid His Honor, was an absolute untruth . Mr Murdoch did give an explanation of his action. That explanation was that he had taken an oath, to the Presbytery not to disclose those documents. He had no other to give. Certainly he did not offer any other; either at that time or any other timeMr. Murdoch ,did cot ask lor leave t*s censure ■ r ” .ftery. M- A, ' i ~:och' asked for ’•ermisEioii to consult his leg&l Itriviscr, sr'- 5 it --eutea Me WSJ allowcH o~nfc time to "onsu’i 'ego* a 3 visor. an2 HP Comment was net rG ' ccr3ed until ho ’esrat aavtser - ■’’Oj.u.t he waike hrx- ano declined to nroduee the argument. snu v' " * He

Honor) would send every the Presbytery to gaol in the same way It was unfortunate that one man should have been made the scapegoat; but the sins of the Presbytery, if they took that form, must be visited on one man’s head. Mr. Weir, in his remarks said that Mr Justice Hodges musthave been under some delusion . He must have thought that the members of the Presbytery had met and ta'xeu. an oath not to produce the documents. The delusion was that he (His Honor) had believed Mr. Murdoch on his oath. Mr. Murdoch swore that he had sworn not to produce the papers without the consent of the Presbytery. The representations in the Presbyterian Assemblv had been backed up by an anonymous letter published in the press —a letter characteristic of fanatical zeal, but fanatical zeal tin' origin of which was disclosed by the language used. The writer said that His Honor ought to be ashamed of himself for committing a. Presbyterian minister on tho application of a Homan Catholic K. C. That was an illustration of the perversion of facts which could come from fanatical zeal. It illustrated the danger there would be in coming'to the courts, if the courts regarded any man ou account of hi s religion. The law must decide, not according to a man s creed or colour, but according to abstract- justice.